S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9869 and 9870/2009. Case: Kailashi Devi and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9869 and 9870/2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.S. Godara, Adv. And For Respondents: B.L. Bhati, G.C. |
| Judges | Sandeep Mehta, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 16(4); Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Sections 2(a), 2(a)(ii), 73 |
| Judgement Date | May 07, 2015 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Sandeep Mehta, J.
-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
-
The instant writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners, assailing the action of the respondents in denying the petitioners, opportunity to be appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III in the physically handicapped category and with a prayer for directing the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioners on the post of Teacher Grade-III (General), Post Code 22 with all consequential benefits against the seats reserved for physically handicapped persons in the selection process initiated under the advertisement Annex.1 dated 2.9.2008.
-
The controversy raised in these writ petitions revolves around the claim of the petitioners for applying reservation in the category of persons with disabilities (loosely termed as handicapped quota) on vertical basis rather than the horizontal reservation, which was applied by the respondents during the selection process under challenge. The petitioners herein are differently abled persons. The respondents invited applications for filling up the vacancies of Teachers Grade-III vide advertisement dated 2.9.2008 (Annex.1). 11 posts were bifurcated and reserved for the category of physically disabled persons out of total available 369 posts. Further bifurcation was made from these 11 posts and 6 posts were reserved for the persons having low vision and remaining 5 posts were reserved for persons having other disabilities. The petitioners claim that they were armed with the requisite eligibility criterion and accordingly, they applied against the five posts reserved for persons with disabilities other than low vision quota. The result of examination was published by the respondents and the newspaper cutting of the result has been placed on record of the writ petition as Annex.3. It is asserted in the writ petition that, in addition to the publication of the result in the newspaper, a press note (Annex.4) was also released by the Commission on its official website mentioning that the cut off percentage of marks for physically handicapped persons was 95.88. The petitioner Kailashi Devi claims to have secured 114.92 marks whereas the petitioner Tosif Ahmed claims to have secured 127.84 marks in the examination. The petitioners have raised a grievance in the writ petitions that though the cut off marks for seats reserved for physically handicapped quota was only 95.88 and despite the fact that the petitioners secured much more than the cut off marks, yet they were denied appointment against the seats reserved for their category. The petitioners have further stated that 4 candidates in the physically handicapped other than low vision category, whose roll numbers and marks are reproduced herein below:--
secured more marks than the cut off for the general category candidates which was fixed at 140.08 and this would take them in the category of general candidates and hence, they ought to have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial